IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY 

SHARON E. CONTE, 
Claimant-Below,  
Appellant, 
v. 
RAYMOUR & FLANIGAN, 
Employer-Below, 
Appellee. 

Submitted: January 19, 2007 
Decided: April 30, 2007 
Sharon E. Conte, Camden, Delaware. Pro se. 
Raymour & Flanigan, Liverpool, New York. Pro se. 
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s 
Appeal from Decision of Industrial Accident Board 

AFFIRMED 

VAUGHN, President Judge

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record of the case, it appears 
that: 

1. Sharon E. Conte (“claimant”) is appealing a decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board (“Board”). Claimant began working for Raymour & 
Flanigan Co. (“employer”), a furniture store, on March 28, 2005. She was a full-time 
sales consultant. On March 29, 2006, the employer held a “prospecting” event, which 
is essentially a marketing technique in which customers are contacted and invited to 
the store for sales, to see previews, and the like. The claimant was asked to help with 
the prospecting event and to give her customer list to a supervisor in connection 
therewith. She refused, and on March 30, 2006 she was discharged for refusing to 
turn over her client list to her manager. 

2. Upon notice of her termination, claimant filed for unemployment benefits. 
The Claims Deputy decided that the claimant was discharged for willful and wanton 
misconduct and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. 

3. Claimant appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision to the Appeals Referee. 
The Appeals Referee affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy, stating that the 
employer had shown by a preponderance of evidence that the claimant was 
discharged for just cause in connection with her work. The Appeals Referee also 
found that the claimant received no warning per se prior to being terminated, but that 
the claimant’s insubordination fell into a category that required no prior warning. 
The Appeals Referee also concluded that claimant was disqualified from receipt of
unemployment insurance benefits, effective with the week ending April 8, 2006, until 
she has been employed in each of four subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive) 
and has earned wages in covered employment equal to not less than four times the 
weekly benefit amount. 

4. Claimant appealed the Appeals Referee’s decision to the Appeal Board. 
The Board stated that the issue in this case was whether claimant’s actions constituted 
insubordination. The Board went on to define insubordination, in the absence of a 
definition supplied by the employer, as “a wilful or intentional disregard of the lawful 
and reasonable instructions of the employer.”1 The Board adopted the Appeals 
Referee’s findings and concluded that claimant’s refusal to give her customer list to 
her manager was insubordination and that she was not required to receive a warning 
before termination. The Board affirmed the Referee’s decision and held that the 
claimant is denied benefits. 

5. Claimant now appeals the Appeal Board’s decision to this Court. The 
limited function of this Court in reviewing an appeal from the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board is to determine whether the Board’s decision is supported by 
substantial evidence and free from legal error.2 The appellate court does not weigh 
the evidence, determine questions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be
given to their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from them.3 The court 
merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency’s factual 
findings.4 

6. The Board adopted the findings of the Appeals Referee and considered the 
sworn testimony of the claimant during the Board hearing.5 The claimant admitted 
during her testimony that she refused to give management the customer list. She 
explained that the list was available to management on the computer and the reason 
she did not give it to them was because she had already called her customers to let 
them know about the promotional event involved with the March 29 prospect. The 
Board held that her excuse was not sufficient to hold that she did not act in an 
insubordinate manner. 

7. The claimant’s arguments on appeal go to the factual issues of her 
unemployment claim. It is not the role of this Court to make findings of fact. The 
Appeals Referee was in a better position to make findings based on the testimony of 
the employer and the claimant. This Court’s review is limited to a determination of 
whether the decision of the Board was free from legal error and supported by 
substantial evidence. 

8. Based upon the transcripts and the testimony presented at the hearing, the 
Board, adopting the Appeals Referee’s findings, concluded that there was sufficient
evidence to prove that claimant was terminated for insubordination. The Appeals 
Referee had discretion to give more weight to the testimony of James Gittings and 
Heather Anderson, two of the witnesses, than to the testimony of the claimant. 

9. The Board determined that the employer met its burden of proof by showing 
just cause for discharging the claimant. This decision is supported by substantial 
evidence in the record and free of legal error. 

10. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr. 
President Judge